Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Development life cycle

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Software development process. --MCB (talk) 04:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Development life cycle

No references at all; has the tone of original research. It was tagged for lack of references in October 2006; yesterday I came upon the article, added tags for OR and uncategorized, moved the refs tag up to the top and cleaned up a randomly placed sentence at the bottom, and then I noticed that random sentence had been placed in May 2007, which was the last time this page was edited. Given that the page has basically been vandalized for a year, and tagged for references for eighteen months, it seems unlikely that adding more maintenance tags is going to prompt improvement. Propaniac (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or redirect to Software development process. Seems like an attempt to generalize that article using a slightly different phrase ("software life cycle" being another equivalent). I appreciate the intent but it does seem to be OR unless it can be shown that such a thing is referenced outside the context of software. The article does not even attempt to properly demonstrate that, as it still draws on software as an example. Ham Pastrami (talk) 13:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Software development process. "Development lifecycle" is usually a term that applies to one of the lifecycle models outlined in that article. Kate (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep and fix it. Deletion is not the remedy for low quality articles. Or, if it should be redirected, discuss on the talk page of the article, or the relevant workgroup. AfD is not the place for that DGG (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The title is a good one and an imperfect start is better than nothing. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per User:Kate. JIP | Talk 17:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. The scope between Software life cycle, Software development process and this article needs to be resolved; but the lifecycle predates software development and it's utility extends to all forms of product development/engineering. -Verdatum (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Software development process which covers the scope of the topic under a better title. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not redirect if this is merged, then rename the page history link to something else. If kept then rename. This is an inappropriately generic name for a software concept. It could refer to biology, or construction. 70.55.84.230 (talk) 05:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Googling on the term, all I can find are pages like "software development life cycle", "database development life cycle" and "network development life cycle". No sign of biology or construction. While the term sounds generic, it appears to be mostly used in IT. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect As per User:Kate. --SkyWalker (talk) 08:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Software development process - the topics clearly overlap and are better dealt with in one page. There is nothing obvious to merge but this article can be mined by the editors of Software development process if they so wish. Smile a While (talk) 02:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow reconcile this mess with new product development and software development process. Wikipedia's coverage of IT project management is in such disarray that this article is duplicated a dozen times over under different acronyms and newly publicized approaches. Come to think of it, deleting this pile is a good first step. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.